For Telamon, thank you and yes I agree that National Objectives (or NOs as you call them) are fun and new and make for interesting game play.   Yes, without National Objectives the game changes, and it would impact the flow of the game, I totally agree with you.  Pretty much all of the rules or bidding changes people are suggesting in this thread will change the flow of the game in potentially unforseen ways.  But Larry has provided us with a lot of “optional” rules for the game, even 2 different setups (41/42) which used in various combinations provide a number of different games all in one box.

However the cover of the box says “1941” and optional rules are optional so I offer that the 1941 setup with zero optional rules must be used as the definitive game or “standard” or default to which all variations are compared.

I get the feeling that people out there have been using the optional National Objectives more often than not, and glancing at your After Action reports, which is the closest thing I can find to statistics here, that seems to be the case – please correct me if I’m wrong.  For whatever reason this is I’m not totally sure, but my guess is because National Objectives are fun and new and add spice to the game, which is fine, but they’re optional and in my mind that means not part of the standard game.

So again the question is asked, the standard/default game, 1941 with no optional rules and therefore without National Objectives does the default game favor the Allies?  I’m curious what you all think?

And if you find that 1941 without National Objectives favors the Allies and with National Objectives favors the Axis, can’t it be said that this optional rule just might have intentionally been created by Larry as the balance for the game?  Used on a “sliding scale” of National Objectives this is the bid system you may be looking for!

New to the group, and I have voted.

I will applaud you all for your creative thinking.

Here are a few questions for you all.

Presuming it is true that the 1941 scenario with the National Objectives is biased towards the Axis, then is the opposite true that the 1941 scenario without National Objectives is biased towards the Allies?

Here is another question, National Objectives are an optional rule, right?

As you all say, earlier versions of this game also favored the Allies, right?

Always respectful of Larry Harris and impressed with his games, I offer the following suggestion, that perhaps National Objectives are part of his grand plan.  Due to the inherent bias of the war/game towards the Allies, he created National Objectives as an optional rule to turn the tables on the Allies.

So while I applaud your creative thinking about lump sum bid systems and moving units around the board for the 1941 scenario, maybe the point is that National Objectives are supposed to favor the Axis.  And if it is true that without National Objectives the game/war favors the Allies, then without redesigning the game or the setup or implementing new rules, maybe the simplest way to play “balanced” game is just to reduce the value of the National Objectives from 5 IPC to 4 IPC or 3 IPC or 2 IPC, depending on the skill level of the players at the table.

This way requires no new rules, no new units, no new setups and fixes any balance issues quickly and with a minimum of fuss.